chrisruzin.net :: French Military Victories (January 29, 2003)

“Why would the CIA forget about a threat like Saddam just because they couldn’t conclusively nail him on WMDs?”

The CIA wouldn’t do that, but you’re telling me that poor communication is reason enough for the CIA not to answer the WMDs question.
That is, that the CIA would consciously ACCEPT to let the WMDs question be left unanswered because of poor communication. Isn’t this what you mean?

“They either had evidence that led them to believe he still had them”

They are unskilled… so they created erroneous evidence from nothing?

“or they didn’t have enough evidence to say he didn’t have them.”

So… wouldn’t they try to know more?

“Or it could even be both. Whatever it was, Saddam was still considered a greater threat than others (except Bin Laden).”

Greater than say… Kim Jong II?

“The bad information would be Iraqi exiles making claims about Saddam’s capabilities, plans, etc. when they don’t really know or are just wanting to make the US take action. The CIA has no real way of verifying every single claim these people make. And if more than one exile gives you the same or similar information to others, then you would tend to believe them.”

This is extremely weak evidence. Even as unskilled as you’re telling me they are, I doubt CIA people would “tend to believe” these unsure testimonies without any verification.

“It’s not hard to follow the logic of inspectors not being able to do their job because of hindrances by the Iraqi government. Read the UN report made by Blix and ElBaradei in 2003.”

I sure will.

“We were never discussing whether Saddam would gas Americans in a time of peace. We were discussing whether Saddam would aid or harbor terrorists who would do such a thing.”

This is what I said :
“3a) There is evidence that shows that these WMDs were a threat to the US (that is Saddam was either willing to use them directly on the US or to give them to anti-american terrorists)
OR
3b) No evidence is needed”

To which you replied:“3) Saddam used WMDs on his own people and on Iranians. That’s widely known.”

To which I replied: “Saddam did use WMDs against Iranians and Kurds which are arguably not “his own people”. Actually, Kurds were helping Iranians. This use of WMDs was coward and unnecessary, but it nonetheless happened during a war…”

… no comment

“And “time of peace” is misleading. To Al Qaeda and other terrorists, it was and still is a time of war.”

Certainly, but not to Saddam.

“I can see we’re going to keep going around in circles on this. I don’t know what else can be said by either of us. There isn’t enough evidence to convince me the war is all about money. Not even close to enough evidence. Just assumptions and conjecture.”

I can see this too.
Nonetheless, we have dug a little deeper than the usual mud slinging.
You cared to reply to my points and I thank you for this.

I’m now more motivated to find out more. Despite your clear and well argumented points, this war being about protecting the US against WMDs or terrorist attacks still looks very improbable to me.
Maybe because I’m biased. That’s why I want to learn more about this. I will perhaps discover in the process that I was totally wrong, which is fine. Maybe I won’t, and next time I argue about this, there will be fewer assumptions.

Let’s also see what happens to Iran, Venezuela and North Korea…

A beautiful conclusion.

It was a pleasure. See you!

Hi guys, sorry. Had a life. I must say that my last post really shock things up. Before it lies the calm green pastures of consensus, after it lies a barren waste of hatred and bikigirl mudwrestling.
Unfortunatly the consensus seems to grown out of this waste, reemerging like the phoenix. So, baby I’m back!

At least the debate has now becomed intelligent wich is intresting considered the american presence. [insert ironic smiley].

Man have you written much. Didn’t even bother to more than skimm[sic] the volumous opus at hand.

About the Iraq war, it was poorly planned, poorly executed and hidiously followed up on. Intelligence data was based on obscure works of fiction, even though for obvious noone bar THOSE PRESENT definitly exluded the possibilty of WMD or ABC weaponssystems, no western intelligence agency cave those theories any recognition. Senior officials within the CIA commented on the fact that intelligence didn’t support anything along those lines, at least not when some measure of critical thought was applid. Everyone knew the WMD/ABC thing was a hoax. The war was to happen in any case.

The point of having a multilateral coallition are twofold. To begin with is gives you more resources for the occupation And it helps with the legitimacy issue. On the downsize however, you are to share to spoils, and america didn’t want to share. Thus France (the only european coutry with a descent army) refused. The were not initially opposed to the war. The were opposed to halliburton.

But my favourite thing about the Iraq war is how the whole occupation issue came as a total suprise. Noone in the entire pentagon seems to have realised that even though the war could be conducted with very limited, precise resources instead of a larger million man army invasion a ll D-day, the occupation could not. The occupation would require a huge manpower (because holding swaths of territory activly is much more strenous than just taking it).

I’m not opposed to the war that much in thory either. It’s not the war issue that distubs me, it’s the bad planning ahead.

On the america rule the world issue, no you don’t. USA peaked as a world power in the 60s-70s. With the soviet threat gone europe no longer feels any need of to comply to american needs and wants, and without europe goes much of the leverage previously held.

well..yeah the french did have an embarassing war history..its not like you couldve done anything better

ok. I gotta admit i tried the google thing and it was amusing…
but all the French bashing is crazy. They might not have the glorified military that the US has… wait didnt little countries like Vietnam and Korea keep us at bay…but the French have a great culture that the people celebrate.
They were instrumental in helping the US become what it is today. Without them we would still be under English rule. Period.
Now we have repaid that debt by bailing them out in WW2. But you have to think why they caved in so easily. They saw their art, their monuments being destroied. Hitler was not playing. He knew where to hit them and even though they could have fought back the Government decided to save what they could and work behind the scenes.
i have been to France and took French in school, but that in no way means i am in love with all things french. But lets be real.. Americans have a way of being arrogant as well. As does every other country. its called pride. The French dont go all over the world toting how great their country is.
americans do. We go around still preaching the “American Dream” while starting/causing conflicts all over the world.

We (Americans) need to wake up and see the World how it really is. Leave the precious Continental United States and travel before making snap judgements. Have a little culture.

Stop bragging about a country that until 1917 didnt allow women to vote. Until the 1960’s had laws on the books to oppress black people.
Wake up and see what Civil rights really are.

We could of course, but were would the fun be in that? at least the intra-western unanimosity doesn’t result in guns firing ablaze…

how did we get from bashing the French (which is totally un cool) to talkin about Iraq?

wow this is funny #### i just finally got time to check it and i think you guys are retards if ur offended by it french victories lol yea french sucks i think we should send them a get well soon card but that wont work because of all the bashings theyve taken… even the best doctors in the world couldnt help them because they loose soo much….i think its funny tho….i wouldnt be able to stand my country if i was french…its just soo pathedic…YEA GO AHEAD AND MAKE FUN OF MY SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION BUT I DONT CARE I JUST WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE REALIZE HOW BAD THE FRENCH REALLY ARE THEY SUCK SO BAD ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY ITS BEOND LAUGHING AT BUT WELL JUST KEEP TELLING EVERYONE HOW BAD THE FRENCH SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post simply bagam as a link to a parody page of French Military Defeats so I will comment on that. The page is real. The information as real. It wasn’t made up and although it was probably aimed at poking fun at France’s military history, it doesn’t give any commentary — just facts. The military defeats that are listed are factual so I have no idea why a huge arguement like this can be extracted from it.

Chris, you are a obviously very intelligent guy and I support almost all you have to say but for one thing. The Americans and the BRITISH helped the French in both world wars. I say this as a Scotsman and former soldier. You have to remember the Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish and English make up the U.K. It still pisses me off when the Germans in the war movies refer to us as Englanders

Thats alright Chris, the English are probably a lot worse than you. If there is an English team playing any sport that they won its a monumental victory for all England. If its a Scottish win its a great BRITISH win.

Now i beleive were meant to be talking about French military victories not Scottish prejudice. I respect Scotland as a province of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But i do not respect attacks on Britain as a nation. Scotish, English or Welsh we all dwell on the same island and our in a way one people. I agree whole heartdly that Scotland and Wales are somtimes forgotten but anyone with half a brain knows that Britain is composed of Scotland England and Wales. But England winning the world cup and the ashes are Englands wins…not Scotlands.

And beleive me i know what its like to have people forget heritage, E,g America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada wouldnt be what they are today if it wasnt for Britain.

Not interested in English wins nor would I ever try to claim any of them. The point I was making was (as you can read above many times) people mention the British as the English and so, in my view sully the name of many a brave soldier who have fought under the union flag. Remember the Germans stating “The devils in skirts” during the first world war, they were NOT English. Oh yeah the ashes, who gives a ####!

Im even surprised you would call yourself British. It is obvious that over 50% of all Scotsman do not register themselves as British. If im on holiday and i run into a Scotsman and ask where he is from he wont say Britain he will say Scotland. The majority of the population of Scotland would want to be independent.

One more comment to make on this anti- French website. I mean no petty offense towards the Americans by this claim because as you can see it makes alot of sense. The website says under the American war of revoltuion that the French only win when America does the majority of the fighting. Well it is fact that the French played a huge role in defeating the British and if it werent for them then the British would control America for alot longer.

Also world war one and two. In world war one Britain and France opposed Germany from 1914 to 1918, but the Americans declared war on 1917 and took a year to train their men and prepare for war that they arrived in 1918.

In world war two America was a little more punctual and turned up at practically the end of 1941 so again i ask did America do most of the fighting there. Britain stood alone in 1940 but America almost put us in bankruptcy because we couldnt get arms from Europe due to its practical invasion.

Now i ask (administrator) you do let this comment be placed on this forum and dont delete it because it contradicts American statements of history.

Thanks Chris, knowledge overcomes misconception. Winston come out of the dark ages, in Scotland we do have our own parliament. Get your facts right and use a spellchecker. Ask yourselve why you are so bitter against the USA and why you are so misguided. It is true that we in Scotland are proud of our heritage but we are not anti English. We also recognise the worth of having the help of the Americans, a great ally, who had to to travel from a different continent to help in both world wars.

Well you see no Chris America entered the war in 1941 Decemeber. So that is 3 years and one month. The second rule in the website states :

- American Revolution – In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome”, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”

Does that answer your question. I am not stickking up for the British here but for the French. The reason i oppose America in such a way is because this whole fiasco was made by an American if it was made by a German i would give him a hard time about it. I have no hatred towards the Americans except for the misinterpretation in the media which the young people today would rather watch movies like the patriot and braveheart. These two films were well made and very entertaining but it is an overexaggeration.

To conclude on this whole issue of the two world wars. I would say that America’s involvemennt was a morale boost in ww1 and the Americans took years off the war in ww2. They did not save Europe in the slightest fashion. The Russians were pushing the Germans back across Eastern Europe about the same time as the Americans entered the war. Again i do not doubt nor do i disciminate against America’s involvementy. They made a great sacrifice in the war and if it werent for the Americans then thousands more men would have died. And i agree that the vetrans should be commemorated as much as every other soldier in Europe.

Now for you Sapper. If you knew your own people you would know that there is a large majority who want independence. Now these people arent violent or spontaneous but would like to part from the rest of England. No i couldnt care less about my spelling i got the message over to you didnt i so whats the point. If you werent so ignorant and read a history book in your life maybe you would know that the facts i state are true.

I think I got the gist of that Winston, a comma here and there would help your case. I have never mentioned independence or have any interest in it. By the way what does “involvementy” mean? Sorry to stoop to your level but you really are rubbish at this.

Oh gosh now im embarrased, look at that, “Involvementy” gosh of course thats right its called making a mistake. It is usally caused by fast typing due to answering stupid question from mainly youself.

No i am saying for the third time now that Scotland wants to not be part of England that is what i mentioned in previous comments made. Now this is usally known as independence. Now thats the end of it. I think your running out of argument thats why we are conversing about something as stupid as punctuation. I apologize if i caused you any offense through my remarks but i think it is about time we moved on.